David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Zombrex

Barrington wrote: »

But that wouldn't happen. Think about it, 100 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for men to marry girls who were younger than what would be the age of consent now, yet homosexuality was illegal and many people killed for it. Nowadays, child abuse is considered to be one of the vilest acts a person can commit, and homosexuality is widely accepted. There's a reason. Homosexual acts between consenting adults is fine because there is no victim. There is always a victim in child abuse cases. That's why it'll never be voted in. So again, this point is moot.

That is an excellent point.

The primary focus of post-Enlightenment civil rights has been precisely that, civil rights and the protection of those rights. And those rights normally center around the individual and protecting them from harm.

The idea that pedophilia will be legalized if we keep down this liberal route is frankly ridiculous, since pedophilia forsakes the rights of the person involved (the child) for the gratification of the others.

This is exactly the opposite of the way things have been progressing in the Western world.

The same principles that say that homosexuals should not be oppressed because it satisfies the wishes of non-homosexuals are the same principles that say children should not be abused because is satisfies the wishes of adults, be that physically or sexually.

It is no coincidence that in the past societies had terrible track record on children's rights and also oppressed homosexuals and other minorities, because their focus was on the wishes of the ruling members, not of society as a whole.

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Could be caused by pollutants!

"While environmentalists are usually vocal about perceived threats ranging from pesticides to global warming, there is a silence when it comes to one threat already harming the water supply: hormones from birth-control pills.
According to the National Catholic Register, EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a mountain stream near Boulder, Colo., two years ago.
When they netted 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city's sewer plant, they found 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange "intersex" fish with male and female features.
It's "the first thing that I've seen as a scientist that really scared me," university biologist John Woodling told the Denver Post.

Read more: Birth-control pills poison everyone? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42520#ixzz1WAcmBHVh

Yes because the ancient Greeks had the pill :rolleyes:

I've no idea what ISAW means by natural law (in my experience "natural laws" always lines up with the notions the person invoking it has, so for a Nazi it was natural law that Jews were evil and for a Communist it was natural law for the weak to be removed from society), but there is no denying that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena that appears in a large number of species and fits within understanding of evolutionary biology.

Christians can say God forbids it, fair enough. But that argument only gets you up to theological boundaries. When theists start invoking the natural sciences to try and support their notions they fall flat on their faces.

gimmebroadband

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes because the ancient Greeks had the pill :rolleyes:

I've no idea what ISAW means by natural law (in my experience "natural laws" always lines up with the notions the person invoking it has, so for a Nazi it was natural law that Jews were evil and for a Communist it was natural law for the weak to be removed from society), but there is no denying that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena that appears in a large number of species and fits within understanding of evolutionary biology.

Christians can say God forbids it, fair enough. But that argument only gets you up to theological boundaries. When theists start invoking the natural sciences to try and support their notions they fall flat on their faces.

The pill is only a modern day pollutant! In ancient times the earth was spewing out pollutants from Volcano's etc. When we mess up the environment, God only knows what happens!

NuMarvel

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Could be caused by pollutants!

"While environmentalists are usually vocal about perceived threats ranging from pesticides to global warming, there is a silence when it comes to one threat already harming the water supply: hormones from birth-control pills.
According to the National Catholic Register, EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a mountain stream near Boulder, Colo., two years ago.
When they netted 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city's sewer plant, they found 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange "intersex" fish with male and female features.
It's "the first thing that I've seen as a scientist that really scared me," university biologist John Woodling told the Denver Post.

Read more: Birth-control pills poison everyone? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42520#ixzz1WAcmBHVh

I think it's safe to doubt that website's impartiality on the matter, considering the founder has an opinion piece on same sex marriage that opens with this sentence:

"I have to laugh every time a same-sex marriage apologist suggests a society can somehow, arbitrarily, without consequences and further confusion, redefine marriage as an institution between two people of either sex."

Or this charming nugget, later on:

"Those who tell you that same-sex marriage is no big deal and won't lead to the further diminishment of the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage are either being disingenuous or are just plain ignorant.

Marriage is the most important cultural institution in any free and self-governing society.

If you want to plunge into the moral abyss of chaos and barbarism, then just cast your vote for same-sex marriage. Just pretend this profoundly faddish idea is only the latest breakthrough in "civil rights." Just don't raise your voice of objection to this bizarre idea being rammed down America's throat by those who have no appreciation for what really works in God's economy."

Perhaps you agree with him gimmebroadband, but if you're going to put forward scientific possibilities to answer a question, then you should choose a source that doesn't have so much of a bias.

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The pill is only a modern day pollutant! In ancient times the earth was spewing out pollutants from Volcano's etc.

And do pollutants from volcano's normally contain estrogen?

CiaranMT

Barrington wrote: »

So if it has been proven that homosexuality is recognised in nature, what makes you think it is wrong? Why is it unnatural if it occurs in nature?

BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO.

Don't you get this yet?

@gimmebroadband, what about the bonobo ape, for example? Which by and large lives in unspoilt rainforests, and which engages in sexual acts of all types?

gimmebroadband

Is it only biased because it a christian source, or do you think is it wrong that one cannot be both a scientist and a christian!!!

gimmebroadband

CiaranMT wrote: »

BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO.

Don't you get this yet?

@gimmebroadband, what about the bonobo ape, for example? Which by and large lives in unspoilt rainforests, and which engages in sexual acts of all types?

How do you know it's unspoilt, heard of acid rain etc.

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html

Zombrex

Dig up gimme, dig up :rolleyes:

Perhaps it would be better to just stick to the theological arguments, you know the ones that cannot consistently be demonstrated to be wrong.

Just say "I believe God doesn't like it" and no one can show you are wrong.

gimmebroadband

Ibises

Research has shown that the environmental pollutant methylmercury can increase the prevalence of homosexual behavior in male American White Ibis. The study involved exposing chicks in varying dosages to the chemical and measuring the degree of homosexual behavior in adulthood. The results discovered was that as the dosage was increased the likelihood of homosexual behavior also increased. The endocrine blocking feature of mercury has been suggested as a possible cause of sexual disruption in other bird species.[39][40]


@ Wiknight, this is science mate - prove them wrong"

CiaranMT

LOL.

I'm delighted that the RCC has people like gimme defending them.

smokingman

That there is one of the things that irks me the most in life.
Some deists thinking they can "bend" science to their will. Science is science bud...it stands up to logic and is reformed with every rational disruption thought....by people who know what the **** they're talking about.

For the love of whatever, please don't try and drag science down with your bloody fairy tales and magic.

I'll make you a promise; I won't make little of what you believe from now on if you don't try and **** up basic natural facts yeah?

gimmebroadband

smokingman wrote: »

That there is one of the things that irks me the most in life.
Some deists thinking they can "bend" science to their will. Science is science bud...it stands up to logic and is reformed with every rational disruption thought....by people who know what the **** they're talking about.

For the love of whatever, please don't try and drag science down with your bloody fairy tales and magic.

I'll make you a promise; I won't make little of what you believe from now on if you don't try and **** up basic natural facts yeah?

How exactly am I bending science, I found links to some facts that pollutants can effect the environment and in turn can effect nature!

I hope you can forgive a 51 year old lady, I don't mean to irk anyone!

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

@ Wiknight, this is science mate - prove them wrong"

There is nothing to dispute, you claimed volcanic pollutates caused homosexuality in ancient Greece and the produced a paper about methylmercury (a man made compound) effecting birds in America to support this :rolleyes:

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are instead desperately searching for anything to support your pre-concieved notions (what was that about being bias).

NuMarvel

That wikipedia article lists 7 other types of birds as well as 17 types of other animals in which homosexuality activity is recorded or inferred. I don't see anything there that says that those species were subjected to pollutants, do you?

Interestingly, the study also found this:

"Males that engaged in homosexual parings were also less likely to switch partners from year to year,"

So it looks like homosexual birds are more monogamous than heterosexual birds. That can't be a bad thing, can it?

gimmebroadband

Wicknight wrote: »

There is nothing to dispute, you claimed volcanic pollutates caused homosexuality in ancient Greece and the produced a paper about methylmercury (a man made compound) effecting birds in America to support this :rolleyes:

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are instead desperately searching for anything to support your pre-concieved notions (what was that about being bias).

I didn't claim volcanos caused homosexuality, I claimed that there were pollutants in ancient times.

The I posted an example of how pollutants from modern society caused it in birds!

You keep assuming I am tying them up together, which I'm not!!!

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I didn't claim volcanos caused homosexuality, I claimed that there were pollutants in ancient times.

The I posted an example of how pollutants from modern society caused it in birds!

You keep assuming I am tying them up together, which I'm not!!!

Well you're not doing a very good job at whatever it is you're trying to do, then, for reasons pointed out already.

MOSSAD

Please-I'm one of four, the only gay one, my parents both loving/nurturing heterosexuals. What happened to me? Mercury, a volcano?
I have a colleague, one of 5 children, four males and a girl. Three of the males are gay, and all three are left-handed. The breeders are right handed. What happened here-a double dose of mercury or possibly a mega volcano?
As for those apparently heterosexual people who just cannot keep away from condemning gay marriage, well I think they really want to tell the rest of us their deep secret.
How about this gem? When the idea of gay adoptions was raised in New Jersey, the religious apologists condemned it, but said it was ok if the child was HIV positive, because, well, that was a gay thing.

smokingman

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I hope you can forgive a 51 year old lady, I don't mean to irk anyone!

Do you think for one second that the fact that you're a 51 year old woman, that I should stand by and somehow say "ah sure let her be, she's only an aul one" when you're an affront to the human races true triumph in the world we live in. That being pure, beautiful and awe inspiring logic.

From a book that would be my own "bible":

"Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which originates out of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks is as dominated by biological patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter. As the atomic scientist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language."
— Robert M. Pirsig

Logic is the knife that cuts through this "human" failing. It's purity and strenght in science is there for all to see and when this is ridiculed, I find myself in attack mode.

I apologise for being angry, I sincerely do, but maybe what is the root cause of this, the last indivisible element, is that I have too much hope for our species. I see and imagine a world where we're better than this and pure logic and the application of real, beautiful science/engineering is the key but maybe that's exactly how you feel about your god.

I understand how deists think atheism/logic can be a religion, I just don't see the logic myself.

maxxie

QUARES

Cybercelesta

smokingman wrote: »

Do you think for one second that the fact that you're a 51 year old woman, that I should stand by and somehow say "ah sure let her be, she's only an aul one" when you're an affront to the human races true triumph in the world we live in. That being pure, beautiful and awe inspiring logic.

From a book that would be my own "bible":

"Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which originates out of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks is as dominated by biological patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter. As the atomic scientist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language."
— Robert M. Pirsig

Logic is the knife that cuts through this "human" failing. It's purity and strenght in science is there for all to see and when this is ridiculed, I find myself in attack mode.

I apologise for being angry, I sincerely do, but maybe what is the root cause of this, the last indivisible element, is that I have too much hope for our species. I see and imagine a world where we're better than this and pure logic and the application of real, beautiful science/engineering is the key but maybe that's exactly how you feel about your god.

I understand how deists think atheism/logic can be a religion, I just don't see the logic myself.

You may not agree with the GB but there is no need for personal attacks, AFAIK that is against TOS! Condemnation of sodomy is not exclusive to the Catholic Church, it has been condemned throughout the Old Testament!!

smokingman

Cybercelesta wrote: »

it has been condemned throughout the Old Testament!!

A document written when it was perfectly acceptable to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls. The human race has moved on a bit since then; I'd advise you do the same.

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I didn't claim volcanos caused homosexuality, I claimed that there were pollutants in ancient times.

Pollutants which you claim is the cause of homosexuality.

Can you point out what in volcano's cause homosexuality?

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The I posted an example of how pollutants from modern society caused it in birds!

Which does nothing to support your claim that it is not naturally occurring. It is like saying sex is not naturally occurring and then giving Viagra as your evidence :rolleyes:

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You keep assuming I am tying them up together, which I'm not!!!

So you finally admit that homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature, and while it can be triggered by chemicals that is not the source of it, any more than Viagra is the source of sex drive?

If so what the heck was your original point?

wonderfulname

Ooh what fun this thread has become, I'm simply astonished at the lengths people will go to to misrepresent information as backing up their prejudice, handy tip: if you're going to use data to back up your argumentation at least understand it enough to be confident it's not completely ridiculous.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Could be caused by pollutants!

"While environmentalists are usually vocal about perceived threats ranging from pesticides to global warming, there is a silence when it comes to one threat already harming the water supply: hormones from birth-control pills.
According to the National Catholic Register, EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a mountain stream near Boulder, Colo., two years ago.
When they netted 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city's sewer plant, they found 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange "intersex" fish with male and female features.
It's "the first thing that I've seen as a scientist that really scared me," university biologist John Woodling told the Denver Post.

Read more: Birth-control pills poison everyone? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42520#ixzz1WAcmBHVh

Firstly, there is certainly not silence on this issue, it has been heavily studied and reported on in recent years, secondly, it is of absolutely no relevance, neither physical sex or gender have anything to do with sexuality, on top of this it has already been pointed out that variation in sexuality has been around as far back in time as we can be aware. I also feel I must ask that if, bearing in mind it is about as likely as bolton wanderers winning the superbowl, you are right, what possible reason could this be for denying same sex couples the right to marry?

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The pill is only a modern day pollutant! In ancient times the earth was spewing out pollutants from Volcano's etc. When we mess up the environment, God only knows what happens!

So pollutants from volcanoes are us messing with the environment? You do realise that without pollutants from volcanoes there would be no life on earth? Could you kindly tell me how the natural pollutants from volcanoes defy the natural order and what precisely is wrong with the chemicals they release, I'm also curious to know your understanding of the timeline of volcanic activity and what you classify as 'ancient', precisely how volatile do you think the earth was all of two and a half thousand years ago?

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Ibises

Research has shown that the environmental pollutant methylmercury can increase the prevalence of homosexual behavior in male American White Ibis. The study involved exposing chicks in varying dosages to the chemical and measuring the degree of homosexual behavior in adulthood. The results discovered was that as the dosage was increased the likelihood of homosexual behavior also increased. The endocrine blocking feature of mercury has been suggested as a possible cause of sexual disruption in other bird species.[39][40]


@ Wiknight, this is science mate - prove them wrong"

Or more accurately, prove it relevant, from the same wiki page;

An October 2003 study by Dr. Charles E. Roselli et al. (Oregon Health and Science University) states that homosexuality in male sheep (found in 8% of rams) is associated with a region in the rams' brains which the authors call the "ovine Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus" (oSDN) which is half the size of the corresponding region in heterosexual male sheep.[29]
Scientists found that, "The oSDN in rams that preferred females was significantly larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol, a form of estrogen which is believed to facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes."
"The dense cluster of neurons that comprise the oSDN express cytochrome P450 aromatase. Aromatase mRNA levels in the oSDN were significantly greater in female-oriented rams than in ewes, whereas male-oriented rams exhibited intermediate levels of expression." These results suggest that "...naturally occurring variations in sexual partner preferences may be related to differences in brain anatomy and its capacity for estrogen synthesis."[29] As noted prior, given the potential unagressiveness of the male population in question, the differing aromatase levels may also have been evidence of aggression levels, not sexuality. It should also be noted that the results of this study have not been confirmed by other studies.

So in one bird it can be shown that a man made pollutant can increase homosexual activity whilst in one mammal it can be shown that orientation is related to naturally occurring variations in brain anatomy, in the vast majority of incidences same sex activity is concluded to be naturally occurring, by people who know a lot better than you might I add, how do you think it makes sense to pick out one isolated instance and think it relevant to an entire area of study? There is a species of fish that can change it's sex seemingly at will, so surely that means if I concentrate really hard I'll grow a penis...

Cybercelesta

smokingman wrote: »

A document written when it was perfectly acceptable to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls. The human race has moved on a bit since then; I'd advise you do the same.

Moved on to imitate animals, yeh I get it!

MOSSAD

Cybercelesta wrote: »

You may not agree with the GB but there is no need for personal attacks, AFAIK that is against TOS! Condemnation of sodomy is not exclusive to the Catholic Church, it has been condemned throughout the Old Testament!!

Dear me....few questions cybercelesta---do you wear makeup? Do you wear clothes made of different fabrics? All this is prohibited by that wonderfully entertaining history of the Hebraic peoples, the Bible.
Do you have children? And have they disobeyed you? If so, by the logic you use to back your "argument", you really need to execute them. Might be a good thing though, prevent you poisoning their minds.

Cybercelesta

MOSSAD wrote: »

Dear me....few questions cybercelesta---do you wear makeup? Do you wear clothes made of different fabrics? All this is prohibited by that wonderfully entertaining history of the Hebraic peoples, the Bible.
Do you have children? And have they disobeyed you? If so, by the logic you use to back your "argument", you really need to execute them. Might be a good thing though, prevent you poisoning their minds.

God didn't smite a city for wearing makeup or mixed materials!

ISAW

smokingman wrote: »

A document written when it was perfectly acceptable to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls. The human race has moved on a bit since then; I'd advise you do the same.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is no coincidence that in the past societies had terrible track record on children's rights and also oppressed homosexuals and other minorities, because their focus was on the wishes of the ruling members, not of society as a whole.

You have it half only right.

while say in Victorian times children were seen and not heard and put up chimneys to clean them workers rights and welfare rights in general (even for adults) didn't exist.

When I referred to child abuse I specifically referred ( and the reason being so that the issue could not be fudged and the act was clear as to what a "child" was so we can't fudge and say for example "well a fourteen year old can look like a woman and be capable of having children"to adults ) to adults having sex with pre pubescent children. I also refer in various threads to the statistics of this and to the numbers involved in terms or clergy non clergy etc.

Now i have proffered evidence that child abuse in this regard was always wrong and that it didn't become less acceptable and eventually illegal. the "Ancient greece" example is often given as an example of this. In fact the "men with other men" example is valid I would say only for Sparta and not all of ancient Greece. this is because in spartan society children with any birth "defects" were killed and the boys were separated from girls and raised with men.

I have also elsewhere demonstrated Early Christian society had laws specifically against child abuse.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65509576&postcount=862

Conclusion: The research of original Byzantine literature disclosed many
instances of child sexual abuse in all social classes even in the mediaeval
Byzantine society which was characterized by strict legal and religious
prohibitions. ...
In fact when the Greek and Western Roman empire was acceptable of such things there are church rules going back to the third or fourth century against sex with children.

To my knowledge of several places worldwide clergy (well stats in the Roman
Catholic Church anyway which is being discussed above. Protestant and Jewish
clergy may have different stats but little on child abuse is conclusive but
in any case abiove is Roman catholic so let us stay with that shall we?)
constitute one or two per cent of abusers.

So the idea that the church is "progressing" from accepting child abuse to decrying it is in error. The Church always said it was wrong!

The human race hasn't "moved on"

MOSSAD

Cybercelesta wrote: »

God didn't smite a city for wearing makeup or mixed materials!

Selectively quoting the bible my dear. How about the justification for slavery that's in the bible? Or Lot's daughters sleeping with their father? Want to explain that to me?:D
Sounds to me that a little bit of sodomy might just be the thing you need.
Broaden your mind a little.
By the way, define sodomy.

smokingman

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Moved on to imitate animals, yeh I get it!

Newsflash for ya, we are animals too; your superiority complex can't seem to fathom that but I guess that's what happens when someone thinks they're so special, they were deliberatly magic'd into existance.

ISAW wrote: »

You have it half only right.
blah blah totally unrelated blah blah, semantics and blah blah to suit my own bigotry....

The human race hasn't "moved on"

So you're saying that child abuse was always condemned eh?
What of ye old testi times when, like I said, it was perfectably acceptable to marry and have sex with 9 year olds? Oh yeah, that wasn't considered "abuse", that's a good way of getting out of that one alright.

I think you'll find we, as a species, have moved on and through science and the application of logic, will be leaving ghost-rape, magic and all that behind for good sooner or later. You, of course, are still entitled to keep believing the world is flat, is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around you.

wonderfulname

Cybercelesta wrote: »

God didn't smite a city for wearing makeup or mixed materials!

God may not have smited a city due to same sex activity either, sometimes I wonder whether people who claim this outright have actually read the bible, the original Jewish interpretation was that Sodom was destroyed for cruelty, rape of newcomers, blasphemy, and violence. A huge number of Christians argue that there is actually no sexual interpretation of the line "bring them out unto us, that we may know them", that basically you just have a dirty mind and they wanted to interrogate them. References in Jude to Sodom do not mention homosexuality, just strange sexual practices, again, this is only interpreted as homosexuality by those who are already prejudiced against it.
Islam again goes with the sodomites were barbaric raping, stealing meanies reasoning for the destruction of Sodom.

My own feeling is that the story of Sodom is misused and it's actual message of be a decent human or else over simplified to the extreme so that people can use it to do the exact opposite in backing up their prejudice against a group who are different.

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

God may not have smited a city due to same sex activity either, sometimes I wonder whether people who claim this outright have actually read the bible, the original Jewish interpretation was that Sodom was destroyed for cruelty, rape of newcomers, blasphemy, and violence.

I don't think you're being accurate here. There is no evidence as to how the Jews originally interpreted this passage in Genesis. Any evidence I've seen is quote-mined from many centuries later.

However, a plain reading of the Old Testament indicates that Sodom was simply destroyed for general wickedness, rather than for any particular sexual sin. (None of that, of course, alters the overwhelmingly negative view of homosexual acts in the New Testament.)

wonderfulname

PDN wrote: »

However, a plain reading of the Old Testament indicates that Sodom was simply destroyed for general wickedness, rather than for any particular sexual sin.

Certainly in agreement on that.

PDN wrote: »

(None of that, of course, alters the overwhelmingly negative view of homosexual acts in the New Testament.)

Could you elaborate on this please, I find overwhelming to be a tad strong a word, and much of what I have looked into appears to be questionable on meaning, how much anti gay* sentiment is actually in the NT?

*acts!

gimmebroadband

Here are two!

Romans 1:26-27

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity


1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

wonderfulname

Gimmiebroadband what bible do you use?

gimmebroadband

wonderfulname wrote: »

Gimmiebroadband what bible do you use?

Both the Douay-Rheims Bible and New American Standard Bible.

MOSSAD

gimmebroadband wrote: »

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So if a woman orally pleasures her husband she too is going to hell?

gimmebroadband

MOSSAD wrote: »

So if a woman orally pleasures her husband she too is going to hell?

No, not if they finish the job as they should - they have to be open to pro-creation. It is not permitted to orally pleasure alone!

Keylem

Post Deleted!

Keaton

Keylem wrote: »

Catholic sexual morality gives us three specific guidelines:

1. Our sexual actions should be directed to our spouse for his or her benefit and pleasure. Sex is a chance to give ourselves to our spouse in a uniquely loving and intimate way.
2. Each specific type of sexual activity must be of loving intent & action.
3. During sexual union, male climax must occur during normal sexual intercourse (it has to be open to the possibility of fertility).

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/christian-oral-sex.html

I wrote to the owner of beginningcatholic some time ago. I believe he is wrong about the morality of oral sex. This is more in line with Catholic moral teaching:

Sexual Sins Within Marriage

3. Each sexual act must be considered individually and separately, and must be natural, marital, and open to life.

Unnatural sexual acts are immoral, not only because they are contrary to the natural law, but also because they are not open to life. Now in judging the morality of any sexual act, each act must be considered individually and separately. Some ethicists have tried to undermine or contradict the definitive teaching of the Church (that contraception is always immoral) by combining an act that is open to life with other sexual acts that are not open to life. But the Church has rejected such formulations, instead requiring each act to be evaluated on its own.
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of The Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4)
Certainly, then, not only the openness to life of each act, but also the requirements that it be natural and marital, must be applied to each sexual act individually and separately. One cannot consider acts in combination, nor consider multiple acts as a set, when evaluating the morality of each act. Nor can one claim that more than one sexual act is to be considered a single act because sexual climax occurs only after the other sexual act or acts.

Keylem

You're right Keaton - the link I posted only gives some truth, deleted it - sorry Gimme Broadband!

Cybercelesta

smokingman wrote: »

Newsflash for ya, we are animals too; your superiority complex can't seem to fathom that but I guess that's what happens when someone thinks they're so special, they were deliberatly magic'd into existance.

Seeing as you think we're animals, then animals can't get married!

Zombrex

Homosexual acts are put on the same level as fornication in the New Testament.

Fornication is tolerated throughout society, including by Christians (fornication has never been illegal nor have I ever hear of a Christian group calling for it to be, nor for that matter have I heard anyone call it unnatural).

So how is homosexuality and homosexual relations any worse than non-marital heterosexual relations?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Homosexual acts are put on the same level as fornication in the New Testament.

Fornication is tolerated throughout society, including by Christians (fornication has never been illegal nor have I ever hear of a Christian group calling for it to be, nor for that matter have I heard anyone call it unnatural).

Again I half agree. Christians have tolerated but objected.
Fornication has been illegal however. Specifically sex by a married person with someone outside the marriage. There are laws against adultery, prostitution, bigamy etc.
As for unmarried people therr are laws against sex such as rape, and some of it is considered unnatural.
Finally, your "laws" refer to laws in western societies probably in the last 400 years or so.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/fornication-adultery.php

Law dictated that the clergy report known fornicators (those who were unmarried and had sexual relations) to the law authorities, who might either punish the offenders with fines (these varied locally), or in many cases try to coerce the couple to marry

So how is homosexuality and homosexual relations any worse than non-marital heterosexual relations?

Who said it was?

MOSSAD

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No, not if they finish the job as they should - they have to be open to pro-creation. It is not permitted to orally pleasure alone!

This is becoming surreal. Angels on heads of pins etc. Reminds me of the UK case where a woman sought divorce on the grounds that her husband forced her to perform oral sex.
M'lud dismissed her claim with the response "madam have you no teeth?"

Cybercelesta

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:8

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

AhSureTisGrand

ISAW wrote: »

As for unmarried people therr are laws against sex such as rape

Believe it or believe it not, those laws apply to married couples too

gimmebroadband

MOSSAD wrote: »

This is becoming surreal. Angels on heads of pins etc. Reminds me of the UK case where a woman sought divorce on the grounds that her husband forced her to perform oral sex.
M'lud dismissed her claim with the response "madam have you no teeth?"

To put it bluntly, God does not condone gay marriage or gay sex, end of! I agree with God!

Penn

gimmebroadband wrote: »

To put it bluntly, God does not condone gay marriage or gay sex, end of! I agree with God!

And God definitely wrote the Bible, did he? God definitely told people to write that homosexuality was wrong? Or is it possible that people may have wrote that bit based on their own feelings and claimed it was from God?

NuMarvel

gimmebroadband wrote: »

To put it bluntly, God does not condone gay marriage or gay sex, end of! I agree with God!

But if couples who wish to marry aren't looking for the blessing of God, then why should the right to a civil marriage be denied to them?

I understand that the RCC doesn't recognise it as a marriage, but RCC also doesn't recognise the second (or subsequent) marriage of a person who is divorced. And yet no one questions a divorced person's civil right to remarry, even though God doesn't condone it.